Of course this is impossible to establishment, but then again, they have no idea how planets are formed. Their computer graphics are worthless compared to real pictures of objects in different stages to their evolution.

1.
There is no mechanism for the heating of the first rocks that supposedly made
Earth.[4] The rocks are assumed to be hot based off the idea of
pre-existing heat from gravitational pressure in outer space. This is
contradictory to evidence that outer space is extremely cold (2.7 Kelvin)[9],
being a near vacuum [10] and the fact that gravity cannot pressurize
material without a pre-existing celestial body causing the gravity. For their
model of gravitational heating to work, gravity has to be present without a
large celestial object like Mars being in place. This is a glaring logical
contradiction.

2.
There is silver in the crust in nugget form which is heavier than iron and has
a much lower melting point.[2]If the iron catastrophe were correct then there should be no silver in
the crust, because all the heavier elements that have a much lower melting
point and are heavier than iron should have sunk to the center as well. There
simply has to be another property of iron that causes it to clump together in
the center, as is covered by stellar metamorphosis.[5][6][8]

3.
There is no mechanism for 1 centimeter sized pebbles to clump into 1 kilometer
sized rocks to form planets in outer space.[3][7] (This is another GIANT problem with both the core accretion models and the nebular hypothesis)

4. Callisto is undifferentiated while the Moon
is. Both objects are roughly the same size but one is differentiated and the
other is not. This contradicts the hypothesis that objects can differentiate
themselves via the iron catastrophe. (If the iron catastrophe was a universal understanding then it could be used to explain the other objects.)

5.
There is no mechanism provided to make the iron sink to the center of the
Earth. Just saying a gargantuan portion of iron/nickel measuring 1600 miles in
diameter just “moved” to the center of the Earth is not an explanation. What
would convince the other elements to move out of the way?An experiment can be done to show the inanity
of this argument. Simply set an iron dumbbell on the ground. If it moves
towards the center of the Earth then the iron catastrophe is worthy of science.
Better yet, heat up the iron to its boiling point and pour it on the ground. If
it sinks to the center of the Earth then the hypothesis is correct and we
should test other materials that can sink to the center of the Earth.

6. The iron catastrophe is not applied to explain the iron cores of the other
older stars in our system such as Venus, Mars, Mercury, etc. If there is to be
an actual explanation for why iron is in the center of older stars we must be
able to use it interchangeably with the other older stars. If iron core
formation can only be applied to the Earth and not the other celestial bodies
then it is not even a hypothesis because the other stars have iron cores as
well.

7.
Catastrophe implies that whatever event caused the iron to move towards the
center of the Earth that it happened very quickly, as opposed to
uniformitarianism ( or a very slow change), which would be a more appropriate
reasoning because the Earth is billions of years old. Thus meaning that
whatever mechanism caused the iron to be in the center the process must have
taken a very long time, thereby making “catastrophe” an inappropriate word for
the process. This would be akin to saying Redwood trees regardless of the fact
that they are thousands of years old grow overnight, literally catastrophically.
Saying Redwood trees just burst out of the ground as explosive events is as
inane as stating that the iron in the Earth’s core just sunk there in a few
days.

8.
The iron catastrophe is irreconcilable to general relativity. General
relativity is supposed to be a theory of large scale structure but is not
included in the explanation as to why there is a giant iron/nickel ball the
size of Texas in the center of the Earth. This meaning that via Ockham’s Razor
either both the iron catastrophe and general relativity go hand in hand in
explaining large scale structure, or neither are correct. The author believes
it is the latter in that both are wrong as they both cannot explain large scale
structure.

9.
There is no explanation as to where the rocks that formed the Earth came from.
This is the gorilla in the room. That is unless the establishment wants people
to believe that rocks form in the vacuum of outer space out of nothing.

The fix is simple. Young stars are giant vacuum vapor deposition chambers. They form their metal cores first as they cool. Their cores are crystalline balls of iron/nickel. As they form their cores, the rest of the material will have something to deposit on, forming the new "planet" in the center.

A planet is an ancient dying star that's losing mass to its own radiation and solar wind and other younger hotter stars. This has been known to me since September, 2011. The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis covers this. Unfortunately it flies in the face of their "theories".

They forgot to throw Big Bang Creationism and "fusion" garbage in the trash like in the 1950's and 1960's, but for some strange reason that never happened. It is literally 2014 and they still teach that nonsense in school even though its completely false. What a mess!